By Dave Andrusko
To be honest, I really did think that the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s former “special affiliate,” had gone about as far as it could in promoting the conclusion that 2021 was, for pro-abortionists, the legislative equivalent of the 1929 stock market crash.
I was wrong.
Here’s the latest measured, restrained, just-the-facts headline: “2021 Is on Track to Become the Most Devastating Antiabortion State Legislative Session in Decades.”
So, how have the last five months prefigured Apocalypse Now? Guttmacher’s Elizabeth Nash and Lauren Cross tell us “Right-wing ideologues are engaging in a shock and awe campaign against abortion rights that is largely getting lost against the background of a broader attack on other basic rights…”
Those other “basic rights” do not fall within our single-issue bailiwick, but they remind us again that the Abortion Industry is now, more than ever, comfortable ensconced within the broader Left coalition.
Their dire summary is right there in the first paragraph:
The number of abortion restrictions—and specifically bans on abortion designed to directly challenge Roe v. Wade and the U.S. constitutional right to abortion—that have swiftly been enacted over the past five months is unprecedented. If this trend continues, 2021 will end up as the most damaging antiabortion state legislative session ever.
So Nash and Cross roll out the laundry list of “abortion restrictions” like a dirge. Note when Guttmacher is busy “Tallying the Damage in 2021 so far,” their numbers never match up with ours. They are always larger because they break out any given law’s components and add them up. So one law counts as four “abortion restrictions.”
It’s the same technique, only in reverse, that allows Planned Parenthood to pretend that abortion is “only 3% of its services.” As National Review’s Rich Lowry explained it
By Planned Parenthood’s math, a woman who gets an abortion but also a pregnancy test, an STD test, and some contraceptives has received four services, and only 25 percent of them are abortion. This is a little like performing an abortion and giving a woman an aspirin, and saying only half of what you do is abortion.
What does Guttmacher have correct?
#1. “The 2021 abortion restrictions largely build on earlier ones” in “states already considered to be hostile or very hostile toward, abortion rights.” Put positively (our perspective), pro-life legislatures continued to pass laws that protect mothers and unborn children by limiting the way in which the PPFAs of this world can avoid or minimize the impact of laws already passed. An example would be passing follow-up legislation to prior laws that banned allowing abortion survivors to die unattended but had lacked enforcement mechanisms.
#2. “As our earlier analysis predicted, state policymakers are testing the limits of what the new U.S. Supreme Court majority might allow and laying the groundwork for a day when federal constitutional protections for abortion are weakened or eliminated entirely.”
Guttmacher just figured that out? We have been “testing the limits” since 1973. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were abysmally reasoned decision, untethered to the text of the Constitution and totally disdainful of the states’ legitimate right to pass their own laws on abortion. We are simply assisting the Supreme Court to wake up to these realities. And…
#3. “Because of the coordinated and creeping [‘coordinated and creeping’? Wow!] nature of these tactics, it can be anticipated that antiabortion lawmakers in other states may try to pass similar legislation in the near future.”
So, let me get this straight. Pro-abortionists never learn from one another, nor do they attempt pass legislation in states D, E, and F that were enacted in states A, B, and C?
What pious poppycock.
One other thought.
The pro-abortion ethos is built on an inversion. They do not honor the most crucial bond in human culture, that between a mother and her unborn child, rather they celebrate that the bond is one they can dissolve at the flip of suction machine.
Justice is not treating the lives of the helpless vulnerable with special reverence but obliterating them with casual ruthlessness because they are powerless to stop us. This brings to mind the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s June 1965 Commencement Address at Oberlin College. Dr. King famously observed that, “Yes, we shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
But in the very next sentence, Dr. King added, “We shall overcome because [Thomas] Carlyle is right: “No lie can live forever.”
“No lie can live forever” because (as Rev. King said in his very next sentence] “James Russell Lowell is right”:
Truth forever on the scaffold,
Wrong forever on the throne,
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow,
Keeping watch above his own.